A new survey from the Public Religion Research Institute asked people about the severity of recent natural disasters. About six in 10 (62 percent) said climate change is at least partly to blame. About half -- 49 percent -- cited the biblical end times (as in, the apocalypse) for the recent natural disasters. That latter number is up five points from 2011.-------------------------------------------------------------------------of all the issues tested by PRRI's poll, climate change is viewed as the least important. Just 5 percent rate it as the No. 1 issue, behind things like immigration, education and the wealth gap.

I read another similar article. The Apocalypse now babble from pastors and priests has the causation mostly wrong. Denial by omission.

The beginnings are here and have been, and the future looks like it could go geometric to GTE, and faster than many can comprehend except for "Apocalypse". It is true, "The evil we have done", but it is because of overpopulation caused heavy pollution from fossil fuels and slash and burn agriculture to feed the overpopulation. Greed of sinful proportions among so many.Cow like non-understanding of what is really happening and why by the masses........

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Every religion has its apocalyptic aspects. I know many skeptics. I know many religious people. I don’t know one fellow skeptic that bases his/her beliefs about climate upon a religious observations. The only denomination I have been exposed to that would answer a poll in this fashion are the Jehovah Witnesses.

This many come to a shock to some but I am a skeptic. This belief has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It has to do with a life time of predictions that never come to pass. It has to do with observed methodology that doesn’t make sense. It has to do with observing a cycle that ebbs and flows, and what we are observing today is nothing outside of that cycle. It has to do with observing obvious climate drivers that the warmunists insist on ignoring. It has to do with cornerstone studies where the scientist involved refuse to allow their work to be replicated. (Smart move on their part because it can’t be replicated, and if it were it would be obvious exactly what kind of cheating took place.) It has to do with hanging all of this on a trace gas that can't possibly do what they say it does. It has to do with observing a nice 6 figure salary many make writing grant proposals, and getting published in a paper that no one reads. It has to do with observing the gravy train rolling out of the federal government to only those who agree to play ball.

Many have observed the modern climate doom and gloom sayers conduct themselves very much like a religion. Haruspication. Foretelling the future by examining the entrails of sacrificial victims. It is just as valid a method as forecasting climate changes by examining small collections of data from narrowly-defined areas. In both cases the prediction depends on what the haruspix wants to happen.

I think the OP is attempting to paint with a board brush a mile wide by posting a poll featuring idiots to prove a point that serves an agenda.

It has to do with hanging all of this on a trace gas that can't possibly do what they say it does.

So you either do not believe there is a Green House Effect, do not know how the Green House Effect works, or just do not care about the truth in the pursuit of your agenda.

You do realize the concerns over increasing CO2 concentrations affecting temperature were made several geneartions ago? To try to connect the science to some vast conspiracy theory has to cover over a century in time, which makes it much more difficult than your claims of government "gravy trains" and the like.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

You site a bunch of old science from the 1800's? Oh good Christ who is supposed think that is relevant? I think modern techniques have a much better grasp on science. Toward that end....

No warming for the last 18 years. No warming for the last 18 years according to satellite temperature data. Which gives us voluminous data around the clock and calendar. No warming for the last 18 years with rising CO2 levels according to Mauna Loa Observatory. Something is not right here. I know its impossible for you to look through your religious veils to see the truth. From 1940 to 1980 temperature fell while CO2 rose. Your hypothesis is not plausible. So, for 58 years of the last 100 temperatures have not gone up while CO2 has risen at a dramatic rate. To believe that CO2 is responsible for warming with these facts presented represents a huge leap of faith.

Quote:

A leap of faith, in its most commonly used meaning, is the act of believing in or accepting something intangible or unprovable, or without empirical evidence.[1] It is an act commonly associated with religious belief as many religions consider faith to be an essential element of piety.

Don't let the winter cold spell fool you. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) revealed Thursday that 2014 is set to be the hottest year in recorded history, with October setting another record for monthly temperatures.

This marks the fifth month out of the past six to set a record high global temperature, according to NOAA. The average temperature across the world for the month of October was 58.43 degrees Fahrenheit, beating the prior record for the month, set in 2003, by 0.02 degrees.

The agency notes that ocean temperatures are also warming considerably and announced that October was the sixth month in a row that global ocean temperatures broke records.

"It is becoming pretty clear that 2014 will end up as the warmest year on record," said Deke Arndt, climate monitoring chief for NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, according to the Associated Press. "The remaining question is: How much?"

It has to do with hanging all of this on a trace gas that can't possibly do what they say it does.

You are not the first denialist I've come across who can't grasp the concept of ghgs. CO2 was determined to be a ghg back in the 19th century. The general rule of thumb is a doubling of CO2 results in roughly a 3 deg. C rise in temperature. Since we started measuring we have gone from 280 ppb to 400 ppb. That is significant.

I think modern techniques have a much better grasp on science. Toward that end....

You do not think very much do you?

Quote:

No warming for the last 18 years.

Not really accurate, but that is not unusual with your posts.

Quote:

No warming for the last 18 years according to satellite temperature data. Which gives us voluminous data around the clock and calendar.

And you believe that data after it is so heavily manipulated? I suspect you have no clue as to how the satellite measurements work, but I do wonder how you reconcile the fact that it supports the ground based measurement temperature trends you so often claim are too heavily manipulated or even fabricated. Is it that easy fro your position to be hypocritical?

Quote:

No warming for the last 18 years with rising CO2 levels according to Mauna Loa Observatory. Something is not right here.

My vote would be your understanding of the science.

Quote:

I know its impossible for you to look through your religious veils to see the truth. From 1940 to 1980 temperature fell while CO2 rose.

Particulate emissions rose during that time as well. The temperature is affected by other variables, but you either want to ignore them or claim they are more important based on the particular point you are trying to make.

Quote:

Your hypothesis is not plausible.

Actually it has made it to the level of a scientific theory since it has not been falsified since the 1800's when it was first presented.

Quote:

So, for 58 years of the last 100 temperatures have not gone up while CO2 has risen at a dramatic rate. To believe that CO2 is responsible for warming with these facts presented represents a huge leap of faith.

Not really, it is a leap of understanding of the science and facts, which for you could be a very huge leap given your exhibited level of understanding.

Quote:

Quote:

A leap of faith, in its most commonly used meaning, is the act of believing in or accepting something intangible or unprovable, or without empirical evidence.[1] It is an act commonly associated with religious belief as many religions consider faith to be an essential element of piety.

Yup, sound like exactly what goes on here by the Warmunists.

Clearly you are more ignorant or more willful in spreading misinformation and lies than previously suspected. The Green House Effect is tangible and provable. The impact on that effect by changing the concentration of the gases responsible is also tangible and provable. There is also empirical evidence to support the theory, some of which you claim is false while also claiming the similar evidence is "golden" when it suits your agenda.

What does it say about a position when the hypocritical use and presentation of data is an integral part?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

1. When Wayne does one of his classic line by line breakdowns. 2. When more ad hominem attacks are hurled my way.

Marcott et al? The new hockey stick? When the old hockey stick has been discredited we will just do another? Even if I took this study at face value its only recorded a .8 degree increase. They can't even get a full degree out of the stroking of the data? Your scientists aren't very good are they. This is the same old trick of tacking on a completely different methodology at the end of the study along with a proxy study. One or the other. Marcott did the same as Mann and look another hockey stick. Isn't that just precious.

However, here I document the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct, as defined by the NRC. I recommend steps to fix this mess, saving face for all involved, and a chance for this small part of the climate community to take a step back toward unambiguous scientific integrity.

Now let's have a look at another study. One that involve empirical data.

This study represents measurable data done with state of the art satellite systems. Now satellite do have problems. They have to be calibrated just like any other device that measures. This is not a simulation. Not a computer model. Not a proxy study. MEASURABLE DATA!!!

It has to do with hanging all of this on a trace gas that can't possibly do what they say it does.

Since we started measuring we have gone from 280 ppb to 400 ppb. That is significant.

Why? With no temperature rise in the last 18 years why is a small increase in a small trace gas significant? Temperatures fell from 1940 to 1980 with CO2 rising. How is this possible under your hypothesis? 3 degrees warming that is claimed is outside (above) what is verifiable.

0 to 2 degrees Celsius - proven in a laboratory. This is repeatable and verifiable.

2 to 11.1 degrees Celsius – Unproven AGW Theory. This theory is based on the processes that model the atmosphere as infinite. This is where your 3 degree claim comes from and its complete bullcookies. This process solves a few problems for the Warmunists. I.E. please see stroking the data to a preconceived notion. I have talked about this technique at length.

Marcott et al? The new hockey stick? When the old hockey stick has been discredited we will just do another? Even if I took this study at face value its only recorded a .8 degree increase. They can't even get a full degree out of the stroking of the data? Your scientists aren't very good are they. This is the same old trick of tacking on a completely different methodology at the end of the study along with a proxy study. One or the other. Marcott did the same as Mann and look another hockey stick. Isn't that just precious.

Yes it does recreate the hockey stick, confirmed by many others. The McIntyre debunk is only accepted by hanger-on denialists these days. The RPJ article certainly does not disprove it or Marcott's work. It simply says, in effect, that to complete the record in modern times paleo data is not enough. No it's not. We have something called thermometers to clarify the modern record. I mean duh!

Here is Marcott's FAQ to supply further clarification with some great following commentary.

As for your 18 year cherry pick even there you are behind the 8 ball. You are using the old graph, not including the Arctic and Antarctic. Here is the more updated accurate one that includes the whole earth. It covers both the northern and southern hemisphere. And of course like a true denialist you ignore the much greater ocean contribution to global warming.

It has to do with hanging all of this on a trace gas that can't possibly do what they say it does.

Since we started measuring we have gone from 280 ppb to 400 ppb. That is significant.

Temperatures fell from 1940 to 1980 with CO2 rising. How is this possible under your hypothesis? 3 degrees warming that is claimed is outside (above) what is verifiable.

The 3 degrees is a rough estimate based on considerable study. As for the 1940 to 1980 irregular downside that has to do with negative natural forcings and dirty fossil fuel burning, principally coal, resulting in outer reflective aerosols. Like most denialists you live in a short term world and expect everything to be linear. Long term and irregular is the way AGW works. Like this.